My point is that you shouldn't conclude that since lethal mutations aren't conserved, then it doesn't matter how many there are. Because as you showed with the post-Chernobyl Ukranians, a high enough number of lethal mutations threatens the long-term survival of a species.

This is incoherent. Please have another go to clarify - so I can answer you.

7) The reason I'm being so pedantic about all this is that creationists 'know' they are right about the destructive bias of random mutations, and the challenge in that for building complexity. Denying this does our case no favours - sure there are good examples of point mutations leading to novel function, but it's not very common. I say the better way to deflate the creationist bubble is to admit the limitations of mutation but understand the population dynamics (negative selection and fecundity) and all the other powerful mechanisms that do give rise to complexity, sometimes even relying on the destruction caused by mutations to whittle away the scaffold upon which complexity was built.

Do you - all atheists - know the killer arguments to counter the creationist case against the real destructive tendency of random mutation?

My point is that you shouldn't conclude that since lethal mutations aren't conserved, then it doesn't matter how many there are. Because as you showed with the post-Chernobyl Ukranians, a high enough number of lethal mutations threatens the long-term survival of a species.

By the way, I do understand the point you were trying to make about lethal mutations removing themselves from the gene pool.

Test that insight I gave you against the references you quoted

Instead of trying to hint at what you think I'm getting wrong, you will have to tell me what that is. I realize you might have done so already in your follow-up post (I haven't read it yet - I'm taking care of the short posts first), but simply assuming that if I read it over a bit more, I will suddenly realize what you are talking about, is a bad way to argue.

My point is that you shouldn't conclude that since lethal mutations aren't conserved, then it doesn't matter how many there are. Because as you showed with the post-Chernobyl Ukranians, a high enough number of lethal mutations threatens the long-term survival of a species.

This is incoherent. Please have another go to clarify - so I can answer you.

Explain what you are having trouble with and I'll be glad to clarify, but I frankly have no idea what you are finding incoherent in this segment of my post.

Dominant lethals are rapidly removed by negative selection. They can play no further part in anything that is living and reproducing. Recessive lethals are held in check - and weeded out when homozygous. The fact that something is alive and reproducing means it contains no dominant lethals and a low number of recessive lethals under strong negative selection pressure in the population.

Sub-lethals and mildly deleterious mutations are another matter - but you never mentioned them - they can persist for longer and affect fitness at a population level.

The Chernobyl example was mainly to illustrate that your understanding of fecundity is incomplete. If the population surrounding Chernobyl could be isolated and forced to inbreed it would decline for many generations but whether it would go extinct is not certain - negative selection may eventually cleanse it sufficiently. It won't work like that however, mainly because of migration, both in and out of the affected population.

^ Perhaps you are mistaking fear of God with despair and anger about stupidity.

But really, I've never witnessed scientists doing what you describe - more roll-eyes and face-palms and shaking-heads at the ignorance theism will bring to any classroom.

if it's so stupid, why are they afraid to teach it?

Seems to me they are scared children will like that explanation better and abandon evolution belief.

if they were so confident children will just laugh it, they should have no problems teaching it.

Why teach non-science in the science classroom. And if they did, what sort of test questions could they come up with?

Non-science quiz:

1. Some people say that life is intelligently designed. Their evidence for this claim is:a. They think they are rightb. They've been told they are rightc. They hope they are rightd. All of the above.

2. Some people believe the planet is only 6,000 years old. To back up this claim, they:a. Go into a tizzy if you disagreeb. Make up evidencec. Threaten you will hell if you don't agree.d. All of the above.

I'd go on, but I think that covers just about everything. If I remember right, you're not big on the 6,000 year old earth thing (I may be wrong, its hard to keep theists straight around here, because there are so many different kinds), but even if you agree that the earth is older, science teachers would still have to teach the young earth version too, because, hey, some people think it is true.

Of course, teachers would also have to cover the subject of the flat earth, jet contrails that are being used to seed our minds with nano-particles that will control us, astrology, moon landing hoaxes and other pet theories. Because there would no longer be any standards to adhere to, which would open the door to every foolish thought ever conceived. I myself was hoping we could limit such gross misperceptions to those within the republican party.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Predation on birds - very common finding that realised fecundity drops - another example of the exact opposite to what you said It's because breeding activities are disrupted during nest defence, and eggs and chicks are taken. The impacts carry on for many generations - basically for as long as the predation pressure remains. Relief only comes if the birds depart the scene to nest in an entirely different location or find nest sites out of reach of the predators, or if the predator numbers decline or they move on to happier hunting grounds.

Granted, this is sometimes true. And there are limits to the effects of fecundity - it simply can't cope with environmental pressures that are too great.

Quote from: William

This is also not quite right. Humans don't reproduce in generational batches. There is a continual procession of people reaching reproductive age since Chernobyl. Many of those reaching peak reproductive age are already now "second generation". Yet the local decline in realised fecundity continues. It is not local fecundity that will "respond". It is the purging effects of negative selection coupled with migration from other areas that will eventually make it appear like a fecundity "response".

I did some further reading, and the problem at Chernobyl is due to radiation poisoning, not genetic mutations. In essence, it's due to iodine-131 and cesium-137, both of which were absorbed from the environment into the human body, and caused long-term radiation poisoning[1], the effects of which include cancer and infertility. So it is simply not relevant to your point about lethal mutations being scrubbed out of the gene pool.

The Chernobyl example was mainly to illustrate that your understanding of fecundity is incomplete. If the population surrounding Chernobyl could be isolated and forced to inbreed it would decline for many generations but whether it would go extinct is not certain - negative selection may eventually cleanse it sufficiently. It won't work like that however, mainly because of migration, both in and out of the affected population.

And as I just got done showing, the problems with the Chernobyl incident were due to radiation poisoning, not genetic mutations. As an IAEA faq on Chernobyl shows[1], while mutations did happen in plants and animals (presumably including humans), the real effects are due to radioactive elements entering the body (such as thyroid cancer) rather than genetic mutations. Not only that, but the article you linked does not break down why the population is expected to decrease. It certainly implies that it's due to the effects of nuclear contamination, but that's not nearly enough in and of itself. There are a lot of factors that go into population reduction.

..and infertility. So it is simply not relevant to your point about lethal mutations being scrubbed out of the gene pool.

Jaimehlers, stop being so stubborn on this, it's getting hilarious

How do you think "radiation poisoning" causes a reduction in fertility? It doesn't only kill sperms ready and waiting to go. It creates LETHAL mutations in germ line cells too - that either kill the germ line stem cells themselves or generate defective sperm cells that can't compete, and many that can still compete carrying lethal mutations - so that even if they get to the ovum the result is lethal!!!!

The same happens to a lesser extent in ova - but many more sperms are manufactured so it's noticed more in sperm count.

If a gamete is not viable, due to lethal mutations received from either the sperm or ovum, that goes directly into the calculation of low fertility - get it yet?

3) Jaimehlers says the creationists are wrong on both counts. Jaimehlers says that neutral mutations are more common than harmful mutations, and carrying those neutral mutations eventually allows for complexity to develop.

I need to clarify something here. Creationists do not just claim the above; they also claim that harmful mutations are more common than other kinds of mutations. It is this that I am primarily objecting to, although I also object somewhat to the statement that harmful mutations tend to destroy genetic information. The only harmful mutations which actually destroy genetic information are ones that result in the death of an organism before it is capable of reproduction. Other lethal mutations (such as sickle-cell anemia, which tends to cause death around or after age 30) actually help to preserve genetic information, since they increase the likelihood of a human surviving long enough to reproduce.

Quote from: William

4) I disagree with Jaimehlers that neutral mutations are more common. I've explained that it only looks like that because previous neutral mutations can persist for long periods. Whereas with new mutations the majority are deleterious. My rationale is that negative selection is constantly purging deleterious mutations (mainly by killing things or making them infertile), and when inherent population fecundity restores the population numbers the genes with good and neutral mutations are amplified.

The problem with your argument is that deleterious mutations can also persist for long periods of time. This is because most deleterious mutations have a very minor effect[1] (in essence, they fall on the 'back' half of the bell curve), which effectively means that they do not significantly affect the fitness of an organism. Even if most mutations are in fact deleterious, there is no reason to conclude that the majority or even a significant minority are deleterious enough to affect an organism's fitness.

Quote from: William

5) I also say that building on neutral mutations is only one pathway to complexity - there are several more. Probably easier pathways are by gene duplication (then through random changes to the less conserved redundant gene copy), and accidental acquisition of large amounts of DNA from other species. (I'm not sure if Jaimehlers agrees with me on this, but he probably does because it's classic evolution theory.)

Also, since humans have two sets of genes, a harmful mutation that is not expressed is available for further mutation to act on.

Quote from: William

6) Jaimehlers has called me out to support my claim that bad mutations are more common. (I will do my best with this shortly.)

7) The reason I'm being so pedantic about all this is that creationists 'know' they are right about the destructive bias of random mutations, and the challenge in that for building complexity. Denying this does our case no favours - sure there are good examples of point mutations leading to novel function, but it's not very common. I say the better way to deflate the creationist bubble is to admit the limitations of mutation but understand the population dynamics (negative selection and fecundity) and all the other powerful mechanisms that do give rise to complexity, sometimes even relying on the destruction caused by mutations to whittle away the scaffold upon which complexity was built.

The problem is, there is no reason to conclude that a deleterious mutation is necessarily destructive, as you evidently do. It's certainly true that some of them are, but the key is how much of an effect the mutation actually has - a mutation that has a small effect, whether bad or good, is simply not going to affect the fitness of an organism by very much. Not only that, but whether a mutation is beneficial or detrimental often depends on the environment. That's why variability is important, and why deleterious mutations often do persist for long periods of time.

I will, of course, not contest your statement that sufficiently harmful mutations can and do purge themselves from the gene pool. My point is that most mutations do not fall into that category.

Your attitude is not helping matters any. I do not appreciate being condescended to, even when it is inadvertent. And it is rapidly becoming far less inadvertent. Now, maybe you meant to come across as humorous, but it is not coming across that way.

Quote from: William

How do you think "radiation poisoning" causes a reduction in fertility? It doesn't only kill sperms ready and waiting to go. It creates LETHAL mutations in germ line cells too - that either kill the germ line stem cells themselves or generate defective sperm cells that can't compete, and many that can still compete carrying lethal mutations - so that even if they get to the ovum the result is lethal!!!!

And how do you propose to tell whether it was actual damage to a sperm or ova, or a genetic mutation in that sperm or ova, that caused it to die? This is a very relevant question - you cannot simply assume that infertility in Ukraine is primarily, or even significantly due to lethal mutations. Some, yes. But how much of it was in the general population due to radioactive isotopes of iodine, strontium, and cesium that were released into the environment, and how much of it was in the 'liquidators', the people who actually helped clean up the results of the incident?

Quote from: William

The same happens to a lesser extent in ova - but many more sperms are manufactured so it's noticed more in sperm count.

If a gamete is not viable, due to lethal mutations received from either the sperm or ovum, that goes directly into the calculation of low fertility - get it yet?

Again, how do you intend to show that something was not viable due to lethal mutations, as opposed to being not viable due to radiation poisoning?

Rather than me doing a mildly educated guess, here is some evidence from greater experts than I'll ever be:

Quote

One of the earliest theoretical studies of the distribution of fitness effects was done by Motoo Kimura, an influential theoretical population geneticist. His neutral theory of molecular evolution proposes that most novel mutations will be highly deleterious, with a small fraction being neutral. Hiroshi Akashi more recently proposed a bimodal model for DFE, with modes centered around highly deleterious and neutral mutations. Both theories agree that the vast majority of novel mutations are neutral or deleterious and that advantageous mutations are rare, which has been supported by experimental results. One example is a study done on the distribution of fitness effects of random mutations in vesicular stomatitis virus. Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral.

I corrected your link, incidentally. You linked to the wrong part of the wiki.

Also, since the example you linked refers to a virus, and the example just below it refers to yeast (both of which have substantially higher mutation rates than humans do), it doesn't do a whole lot for your argument, especially in light of this, two paragraphs down: "In summary, it is generally accepted that the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious, with rare mutations being advantageous; however, the proportion of types of mutations varies between species. This indicates two important points: first, the proportion of effectively neutral mutations is likely to vary between species, resulting from dependence on effective population size; second, the average effect of deleterious mutations varies dramatically between species.[53] In addition, the DFE also differs between coding regions and non-coding regions, with the DFE of non-coding DNA containing more weakly selected mutations.[53]"

In short, even deleterious mutations can be expressed as neutral ones, such as those that have no noticeable effect on an organism's fitness, or ones that are simply not expressed (due to being recessive).

Quote from: William

Quote

Because more DNA changes are harmful than are beneficial, negative selection plays an important role in maintaining the long-term stability of biological structures by removing deleterious mutations. Thus, negative selection is sometimes also called purifying selection or background selection.

One study on the comparison of genes between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial

Granted, but these refer to a specific kind of mutation - ones that change amino acids. Moreover, the point I raised before about different organisms having different proportions of deleterious-to-neutral-to-beneficial mutations and different mutation rates applies here as well, since this appears to refer to flies rather than larger multicellular organisms.

Quote from: William

And the reference for the wiki quote above says:

Quote

Our analysis suggests that approximately 95% of all nonsynonymous mutations that could contribute to polymorphism or divergence are deleterious, and that the average proportion of deleterious amino acid polymorphisms in samples is approximately 70%.

So the findings in different species and study methodologies confirm what I’m saying about most mutations being harmful. Of course many factors impact these studies and not all results can be perfectly adjusted for them. Dominant lethals, by their lethal nature, just don’t present themselves for study. Recessive lethals get purged in bottlenecks or bouts of local inbreeding. Some deleterious mutations can “surf” to higher frequencies on local waves of fecundity. Some are held in relatively stable polymorphisms by competing pressures e.g. the famous sickle cell anaemia example you quoted.

The problem is, the studies you've referred to have been about a particular kind of virus, yeast, and flies. All of which are prone to high rates of mutation, never mind the caveat I keep mentioning that those rates can easily differ between organisms.

Besides, I brought up a rather serious point in an earlier post regarding human mutation. Specifically, a study that stated that there were approximately 175 mutations per diploid genome (in humans), and that a conservative estimate of the deleterious mutation rate was 3 (out of 175). To elaborate on that, I looked for other studies. One stated that...here, I'll just quote the abstract.

Quote

It has been suggested that humans may suffer a high genomic deleterious mutation rate. Here we test this hypothesis by applying a variant of a molecular approach to estimate the deleterious mutation rate in hominids from the level of selective constraint in DNA sequences. Under conservative assumptions, we estimate that an average of 4.2 amino-acid-altering mutations per diploid per generation have occurred in the human lineage since humans separated from chimpanzees. Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages.

It is also very important to note that organisms such as viruses, yeast, and flies, are often used for genetic studies because they have an extremely high reproductive rate, which means that a high mutation rate is survivable. Humans, on the other hand, have a tiny fraction of this rate. So you simply cannot compare the mutation rate in humans (and other long-lived animals with low reproductive rates) to that of organisms that have extremely high reproductive rates. What that means is that the rate of deleterious mutations you cited in those other studies would not be survivable by humans - as noted in the two studies I linked, the rate of new deleterious mutations in human beings is 1-3 per generation.

Quote from: William

But the key to understanding the problem of damage caused by point mutations is that many genes make proteins (or regulate them). Proteins are not genetic information – they are 3D products that need to operate in a 3D molecular environment in which they’ve already adapted over many generations through natural selection. So structural proteins are quite sensitive to amino acid substitutions that alter their 3D structure, and in enzymes the 3D structure is particularly critical to catalytic function. It’s easier to stuff up the optimised 3D fit of folded proteins than it is to have changes with no effect or enhancements. But negative selection works steadily to cleanse the problems.

Granted, but at the same time, these proteins are more flexible than you seem to think they are. It's the receptor site that matters with a protein, not so much the general shape of the protein. So a mutation that affects some part of the general structure is not as likely to screw up the protein as one that affects the receptor site.

Quote from: William

Quote

Furthermore, mutating an amino acid to a residue with significantly different properties could affect the folding and/or activity of the protein. There is therefore usually strong selective pressure to remove such mutations quickly from a population.

I need to clarify something here. Creationists do not just claim the above; they also claim that harmful mutations are more common than other kinds of mutations. It is this that I am primarily objecting to, ...

Then take your objection up with the scientists who are saying it. To be honest Jaimehlers you are tiring me - I actually don't have time to engage in a piss-ant debate with you, I have urgent and productive things to do right now.

I've explained my case and brought you evidence as I promised - so here are some quotes for you to digest:

Quote

From protozoans to mammals, evolution has created more and more complex structures and better-adapted organisms. This is all the more astonishing as most genetic mutations are deleterious.....The great majority of mutations are deleterious. "Due to selection individuals with more favourable genes reproduce more successfully and deleterious mutations disappear again," explains the population geneticist Richard Neher, leader of an independent Max Planck research group at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany.

Mutation is the ultimate source of all the genetic variation on which selection may act; it is therefore essential to evolution. Mutations carry a large cost, though; almost all are deleterious, reducing the fitness of the organisms in which they occur

"Most mutations are harmful," said UNM Associate Professor Vaishali Katju, who is the grant's principal investigator. "They are the ultimate cause of most of our heritable diseases and yet, they also provide the genetic fodder for the origin of the wonderful diversity of life we observe all around us. Without mutations, there is no evolution.

Previous site-directed mutagenesis studies have shown that most random nucleotide substitutions are strongly deleterious in animal and plant ssRNA viruses. .... After performing similar experiments with phage Q?, we confirm that ssRNA viruses are extremely sensitive to mutation in general. Roughly speaking, the probability that a random single nucleotide substitution is lethal for an ssRNA virus is one third or higher, while viable mutations reduce fitness by 10–13% on average. .... Concerning the shape of the distribution, viable mutations of small effect are more abundant that those of large effect.

This work represents a study of the distribution of mutational effects on fitness for an RNA virus using explicit single-nucleotide substitutions. On average, mutations were deleterious even when lethals were ignored.

Most Mutations in the Human Genome are Recent and Probably HarmfulFast population growth has littered our genomes with five times as many rare gene variants as would be expected....Using several techniques to gauge the effects of these mutations, which are the most common type of variant in the human genome, Akey estimated that more than 80 percent are probably harmful to us.

What makes you think I don't have better things to do than spend hours writing posts? I really, really resent it when I go to a lot of time and effort to try to respond to your points, only to have you tell me that you have better things to do than "engage in a piss-ant debate with me". If you didn't have time for this, then you shouldn't have taken it up with me in the first place.

You seem to be of the opinion that since you explained your case and brought evidence, that that's all you have to do, and that if I still disagree, then you don't have any obligation to go any further. In short, your opinion is sacred, and if I'm not swayed by it, you have better things to do with your time than to reading what I actually wrote. Instead, just dumping more quotes on me.

I spent nearly two and a half hours taking the time to respond to posts of yours that I missed, and this is what I get. Nothing but an insulting affectation of superiority, which you've been displaying all along. I can ignore that with people who are too ignorant to realize just how bad that looks, but you're neither stupid nor ignorant. I was willing to put up with it as long as it looked like we were getting somewhere, but you basically just told me to fuck off - that your opinion being right is too important to you to be worth taking the time to even read over what I wrote, let alone seriously responding to it.

I have better things to do than deal with that kind of smug arrogance. Have a good evening.

What makes you think I don't have better things to do than spend hours writing posts?

Jaimehlers, my entire house was flooded, and it's still raining. Everything is water damaged - I'm taking photos and making lists for the insurance assessors. I'm taking short breaks between working on things. I've just come off my roof where I've been working in the rain to do emergency repairs to my roof. While I was up there I thought about your STONEWALLING on this topic - it made my blood boil - lucky I was up there and not at my computer.

Back in post #7 on this very thread, on August 23, after being contradicted by you, I gave you an nice polite reply with a solid explanation of my point. Instead of accepting it as an olive branch or debating my point it you've carried on repeating your mistakes and niggling on other threads and then moved it back here.

Actually, William, you're incorrect about mutations. Most are neutral ...

Thanks for that Jaimehlers, I do love being wrong sometimes because it makes me learn In this case I submit we may both be right

See, it wasn't me who started this fucking stupid debate - it was you! And you continued niggling away in face of scientific consensus to the contrary and the evidence I've spent my valuable time finding to educate you, both while I was travelling overseas and now while dealing with a home flood situation.

And you have the cheek to smite me!!!! You are too big for your know-it-all boots.

You never did get around to showing the evidence to support your assertion that most mutations have negative effects (either harmful or lethal).

- when I had brought evidence, SUBSTANTAILLY, TWO WEEKS earlier, and then had to quote it all back here for you.

That's poor form. Your pride has got the better of you.

I will address the problems with your only substantial reference, and your faulty interpretation of it. http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.fullFunny that so many of the scientists I quoted in post #46 haven't been swayed by that article either At this time I simply have much more important things to do.

And as I just got done showing, the problems with the Chernobyl incident were due to radiation poisoning, not genetic mutations. As an IAEA faq on Chernobyl shows[1], while mutations did happen in plants and animals (presumably including humans), the real effects are due to radioactive elements entering the body (such as thyroid cancer) rather than genetic mutations. Not only that, but the article you linked does not break down why the population is expected to decrease. It certainly implies that it's due to the effects of nuclear contamination, but that's not nearly enough in and of itself. There are a lot of factors that go into population reduction.

Wow! Jaimehlers is the fear of being wrong so bad that it is now affecting your brain? You are attempting to SHIFT THE GOALPOAST again but again it is a FAIL.

What else but emotion, rather than logic, could make you think thyroid cancer from "radiation poisoning" does not involve mutations? Have you ever heard of somatic mutations? Thyroid cancer is caused by both somatic and germ line mutations. Both classes are mutations - and harmful mutations at that.

Please spare me and yourself this nonsense!

Quote

Most thyroid cancers are considered sporadic, meaning that the damage to the genes occurs after a person is born and there is no risk of passing on the gene to a person's children. Inherited thyroid cancers are less common (about 10%) and occur when gene mutations are passed within a family from one generation to the next.

Most cancers are thought to be caused by mutations in DNA, perhaps triggered by chemicals or radiation, which go unrepaired and build up over a person's lifetime. The mutations eventually lead to uncontrolled cell proliferation.

Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the most common thyroid malignancy, representing ~80% of all cases. In PTC, mutations of genes encoding effectors of the MITOGEN-ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASE (MAPK) PATHWAY are central to malignant transformation. In 70% of all cases rearrangements of the genes encoding the receptor tyrosine kinases RET or NTRK leading to expression of constitutively active fusion proteins, as well as activating-point mutations of RAS or BRAF, are found. In any given PTC, mutation only occurs in a single component of the MAPK pathway, supporting the idea that constitutive functional activation of any of these effectors alone is sufficient to foster development of PTC.[1]

..... Prior exposure to ionizing radiation during childhood predisposes to development of PTC with RET rearrangements and, to a lesser extent, with NTRK or BRAF intrachromosomal inversions. ..... Thus, somatic mutation of BRAF is the most common early genetic event causally associated with development of PTC in adult patients without a history of radiation exposure.

Jaimehlers, my entire house was flooded, and it's still raining. Everything is water damaged - I'm taking photos and making lists for the insurance assessors. I'm taking short breaks between working on things. I've just come off my roof where I've been working in the rain to do emergency repairs to my roof. While I was up there I thought about your STONEWALLING on this topic - it made my blood boil - lucky I was up there and not at my computer.

Then why didn't you say that? Something like, "I don't have time to respond right now because my house flooded" would have gone over a lot better than the way you actually responded. The way you came across was like it wasn't worth spending time time to even read my posts, even though you had time to post more links.

For what it's worth, you have my sympathy regarding the flooded house. At this point, I want you to focus on that and not on me. Don't worry about responding further until after you've gotten that taken care of.

Quote from: William

Back in post #7 on this very thread, on August 23, after being contradicted by you, I gave you an nice polite reply with a solid explanation of my point. Instead of accepting it as an olive branch or debating my point it you've carried on repeating your mistakes and niggling on other threads and then moved it back here.

Actually, I did accept it as an olive branch and said nothing more on it to you.

You are the one who, in that other thread, decided to take things up with me on this point, and it went from there. So don't you now try to blame me for it because of something that happened months ago.

Quote from: William

See, it wasn't me who started this fucking stupid debate - it was you! And you continued niggling away in face of scientific consensus to the contrary and the evidence I've spent my valuable time finding to educate you, both while I was travelling overseas and now while dealing with a home flood situation.

And you have the cheek to smite me!!!! You are too big for your know-it-all boots.

If you're this upset, you should take the time to calm down.

And in answer to your accusation, yes, I brought up a point months ago in this topic - but chose to leave it be after you responded. The actual argument we're engaged in came about because of the "Impossibility" topic. I was responding to something DrTesla said; you replied to part of my response and stated that I'd put a bit of a fallacy. I responded to that, and it went from there. Don't attempt to pin blame based on something that I said months ago when there wasn't anything said after that for two full months.

You never did get around to showing the evidence to support your assertion that most mutations have negative effects (either harmful or lethal).

- when I had brought evidence, SUBSTANTAILLY, TWO WEEKS earlier, and then had to quote it all back here for you.

I missed most of what you wrote in that topic because I take breaks when things start to get too heated. I am not superhuman and I do make mistakes. This is part of why I'm suggesting that you take the time to calm down - because you're upset about other things, and that's flooding over onto this, making you much more upset than you would otherwise be.

You got upset because of something I said, I got upset because of something you said. Just calm down and let it pass - it's not worth losing your temper over. Especially if you're already upset over other things. I had to deal with my apartment being partially flooded once. I didn't even come onto the site until it was all over, because I didn't want my temper over that spilling over onto someone else.

Quote from: William

That's poor form. Your pride has got the better of you.

Nope. I have a tendency occasionally to accept what someone says and not respond to it - the old "silence means assent" maxim. I can see where that might seem dismissive, and I apologize for that.

Quote from: William

I will address the problems with your only substantial reference, and your faulty interpretation of it. http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.fullFunny that so many of the scientists I quoted in post #46 haven't been swayed by that article either

This doesn't mean anything in and of itself. There's more reasons than what you suggest for why those scientists might not have accounted for the article I linked, or even commented on it in their own articles. There's so much scientific work being done, even in a single field, that simply keeping up with it all would be a full-time job by itself, and they have actual work to do as well. Not only that, but most of those (the ones I linked and the ones you linked) are articles on particular scientific studies that those people actually performed. While they might refer to other studies in them, for the most part they're going to focus on reporting the actual results they came up with.

Quote from: William

At this time I simply have much more important things to do.

You're still making the same mistake that you made before. If you have much more important things to do, then do them. Don't take on such a rude and dismissive tone with other people here because of problems in your real life. Deal with the problems first, then come back and deal with the people here. If you need to take a break from them, play a video game, read a book, go for a walk, or something along those lines.

I will respond to your other posts later on. Part of it is because I do have things I want to take care of - though nothing as disastrous as a flooded house, thankfully. And part of it is to hopefully give you time to deal with your real-life problems so you don't have to try to deal with them and me at the same time. Even when I do respond later on, don't worry about trying to get back to me until you've dealt with those problems and their repercussions.

To OP, last time i checked, no scientists are afraid of something that does not exist.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Some scientists are scared to death of God. For proof, ask them to mention the word "God" in science class and watch their screaming, yelling, and faces become red with anger.

This is incoherent (and really, really stupid). First you mention scientists, then you speak of science class. Scientists do not necessarily teach science class. Science teachers are not necessarily scientists. Which group is your target?

Secondly, you being talking about them being "Scared to death". Then, in the next sentence you speak of them being "red with anger". Which is it, fear or anger?

Third, why should they mention "gods" in science class? Science is about empirical observation and explanation. Almost all god botherers admit you cannot get empirical observations of their god. So, it does not seem to me god has any place in science class.

Last, I've never in my life seen a scientist or science teacher act in fear or rage at the mere mention of god. I doubt you have either. So, I'm coming right out and calling you a liar.

I will retract that and apologize if you substantiate your claim. That would require you showing that significant portion of scientists or science teachers have done what you claim. If you cannot do this, you will retract it.

Remember the 8th (or 9th, depending which version you pick) comandment - you shall not lie. Your lies will make baby jesus send you to hell.

I don't see fear, Skeptic; I see "What the **** does this have to do with science?"

If you want to change the situation, here's what you have to do: Come up with a testable hypothesis that explains what "God" is and how it created the universe. Not only will you have science; you might even get the Nobel Prize.

Now, if you'll excuse Me, I have some course materials to write up for some of the other ID units:

Ancient cosmology of the Indus Valley: Which came first, the Cosmic Chicken or the Cosmic Egg?

Tiamat versus Marduk: Was the singularity a large Mesopotamian dragon, and the Big Bang a very pointy sword?

A Norse is a Norse, of course of course: Auðhumbla the Giant Cow as Prime Moover

^ Perhaps you are mistaking fear of God with despair and anger about stupidity.

But really, I've never witnessed scientists doing what you describe - more roll-eyes and face-palms and shaking-heads at the ignorance theism will bring to any classroom.

if it's so stupid, why are they afraid to teach it?

If it's so stupid, why would anyone teach it? Why would a teacher teach stupid on purpose? Ok, to be fair I can come up with reasons to do so - but all of them include making clear in the end that "the stupid" was for illustrative purposes only which is not what you are proposing.

Quote

Seems to me they are scared children will like that explanation better and abandon evolution belief.

And it seems to me that once again, you are making stuff up to support your ideas. Do you really mean the things you type?

Quote

if they were so confident children will just laugh it, they should have no problems teaching it.

I sincerely hope you were homeschooled. It's the only explanation I can come up with that would explain your shocking ignorance over teaching methods.

Your suggestions, frankly, are a waste of already limited time and resources. Keep religion in the home - that way whatever crazy crackpot sh!t the parents can come up with can be reinforced by them and them alone, and they can just teach their own kids to ignore anything the instructors say that contradicts their personal Jesus doctrine. Problem solved for real and within legal limits.

See how simple it is to just follow the law and solve a non-existent problem by not trying to stuff "god" into science education - by not insisting that religion be included in science teaching? That you even think this is a reasonable idea demonstrates how much you don't grasp about science and the scientific method - so here's the most basic primer I could find: Steps of the Scientific Method

Come on skepdude, open that mind a tiny bit and learn a little so you get something out of all your time here.

Firstly, what makes you think viruses, yeast and flies are not relevant to the topic of mutation and evolution. Are you for real?

I did not say that. I said that they are prone to high rates of mutation - and that rates of mutation can differ greatly between species. Short-lived organisms that reproduce frequently have a much higher mutation rate than long-lived organisms that reproduce very infrequently. Viruses, yeast, and flies fall into the former category; humans (along with most mammals) fall into the latter. Using examples of the former to prove a high rate of lethal mutations doesn't necessarily apply to the latter.

Quote from: William

Secondly, you didn't even read that same post and the array of evidence I carefully collected for you from different species INCLUDING HUMAN genetics!!!!:

Actually, I did read it. It is possible that I missed something - as I said earlier, I do make mistakes, such as when I'm writing a lengthy response (or several lengthy responses, as was the case here). Even checking it over doesn't necessarily mean that I catch everything. But I did read your entire post.

Having to deal with a flooded house is a good reason to not respond to a series of posts. It is not a good reason to respond to them by ignoring virtually everything I wrote and post more links. Though I will give you credit for going back and rectifying the situation.

Quote from: William

Tell me seriously, why should I even bother helping you through your little patch of ignorance and stubbornness on this topic!

I am not ignorant on this subject. Where do you get off accusing me of ignorance, especially since I've posted my own information on this subject? That illustrates a very serious problem. You are assuming that I am ignorant, and therefore that I have to be 'helped' to become not ignorant. But that is not the case. As long as you continue to assume that my responses here are due to stubborn ignorance, we're not going to get anywhere.

Quote from: William

Do you have the humility to apologise when you are wrong!

In fact, I have apologized for mistakes I've made in the past. What about you? Are you willing to acknowledge that part of this problem is due to your own assumption that I'm ignorant on this subject, and the condescending attitude you've thus adopted?

Quote from: William

Why don't you read what I posted - long before you went to the smite button.

I gave you a smite because of the condescending and dismissive attitude you displayed here:

Then take your objection up with the scientists who are saying it. To be honest Jaimehlers you are tiring me - I actually don't have time to engage in a piss-ant debate with you, I have urgent and productive things to do right now.

I've explained my case and brought you evidence as I promised - so here are some quotes for you to digest:

This came across quite clearly that you didn't feel it was worth your time to even bother responding to what I wrote. As far as I'm concerned, you deserved that smite - not because you had other things you needed to do (I'll certainly admit that dealing with a flooded home is more important than responding to someone on a website, though it would have been nice if you would have actually said that), but because you threw a bunch more links at me even though you had more "urgent and productive things to do".

How that came across was, "I have other things to do right now, so I'm not going to read or respond to your post - but here's a bunch of links that I think you should read". Think about how that comes across - you're too busy to actually read what I wrote, but you're not too busy to find more stuff that you think I should read.

Quote from: William

Is your mind open to learning from somebody else?

Of course it is. I did learn things from what you wrote. But learning things from you doesn't mean I'm going to discard other things I've learned and absorb whatever you say like a sponge.

----

I separated the link to the paper you quoted because I didn't want to risk it getting lost in the middle of the rest of my post.

The mistake I made here was addressing both this and the follow-up link to the Wikipedia page on harmful mutations at the same time. So I will be addressing it specifically.

It is worth quoting some other remarks from this paper.

Quote

WHILE the fixation of adaptive mutations may be viewed as the crux of Darwinian evolution, it has long been argued that the majority of DNA changes that accumulate over time are not adaptive but neutral, fixed by stochastic fluctuations in a finite population (Kimura 1983)....The proportion of mutations that are deleterious has been estimated from both allozyme and DNA divergence data. Negative selection prevents deleterious mutation from reaching common frequencies and so should produce an excess of rare variation. In humans, the number of rare (<0.5%) allozyme alleles is much greater than expected under neutrality in an equilibrium population (Kimura 1983).

This is where your quote comes in. Kimura's argument was basically that the number of rare variations was too high, and thus was likely produced by a much higher proportion of deleterious mutations (thus the estimate that 79-85% of amino acid mutations were deleterious). However, the paper goes on to say:

Quote

However, a recent increase in human population size can also account for the excess of rare variants. Negative selection also lowers the ratio of amino acid to synonymous divergence between populations and this ratio can be used to estimate the proportion of amino acid-altering mutations that are deleterious. Divergence of 46 genes among hominid species was used to estimate that 38% of amino mutations are deleterious (Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999).

It does note that this might be an underestimate, though.

In short, I'm beginning to wonder if you read the whole paper. If you had, you would have realized that it goes into a lot of detail about the study that Fay, Wickoff, and Wu performed, and is an attempt to show a more up-to-date estimate of the deleteriousness of amino-acid mutations, rather than relying on those from older studies - which is what you quoted from the study.

Given the complexity of the study, I'm just going to try to focus on the latter part - where they discuss their findings. It seems that they do, in fact, estimate that roughly 80% of amino-acid mutations are deleterious (thought that includes all categories from slightly to lethally). Indeed, they estimate that there are hundreds of deleterious amino-acid mutations in each individual - suggesting that most deleterious mutations are not sufficiently harmful to kill off the individual carrying them. This is probably due to a combination of factors, such as whether the mutations occur on coding or or non-coding fragments of DNA, whether the deleterious mutations actually have an effect due to environmental changes, and just how deleterious the mutation actually is.

In short, it isn't enough just to show that deleterious mutations are common[1]. You need to show that deleterious mutations that have lethal effects are common, a much more challenging proposition. It's also important to note that a mutation that is deleterious under some circumstances can be neutral under others and even beneficial under some - thus helping to account for how mutations in general seem to be neutral even though they are classified as deleterious. Another factor is so-called 'silent' mutations, mutations that are either not expressed or are expressed in a way that doesn't make a noticeable difference in function.

One thing I didn't see in the study that I would be very interested to find is whether they were just testing mutations that made a noticeable difference, or whether they were testing all mutations. I'll freely admit that most mutations that are expressed are probably going to be deleterious - so the question is whether mutations that are not expressed would be considered deleterious or not.